8.  Since 1967 the applicant company has owned approximately 65,000 square metres of land in the municipality of Pomezia, entered in the Land Register as folio 11, parcel 66. In 1963 the Pomezia District Council had given its approval for a building project to be carried out on the land.
9.  On 29 December 1967 the Pomezia District Council resolved to adopt a general development plan (piano regolatore generale – “GDP”).
10.  On 20 November 1974 the Lazio Regional Council approved the GDP for Pomezia, which set aside the applicant company’s land for the creation of a public park (parco pubblico) and, consequently, imposed an absolute prohibition on building on the land with a view to its expropriation.
11.  Pursuant to section 2 of Law no. 1187/1968, the prohibition on building imposed by the GDP lapsed in 1979, no detailed development plan having been adopted in the intervening five years.
12.  Despite the fact that the prohibition on building had lapsed, the applicant company’s land did not revert to its original use.
13.  Pending a decision by the Pomezia District Council on its future use, the land was subject to the regulations in section 4 of Law no. 10/1977, a provision which the courts had held to apply in situations of that kind (see paragraphs 38-40 below), and, from 1990, to the regulations in Law no. 86 of the Lazio Region.
14.  The applicant company’s land was consequently affected by the building restrictions deriving from the application of these laws.
15.  On 12 March 1987 the applicant company asked the Pomezia District Council to determine the use to which the land was to be put. No action was taken on this request.
16.  In view of the District Council’s failure to reply, which amounted to a refusal, the applicant company appealed to the Regional Administrative Court (“the RAC”). It argued, firstly, that the District Council was under an obligation to determine the intended use of the land and that its inaction was unlawful. It also sought to have the land designated as building land by the authorities.
17.  In a decision of 16 October 1989 the Lazio RAC allowed the applicant company’s appeal in so far as it acknowledged that the Pomezia District Council’s inaction was unlawful.
18.  The court held that the prohibition on building imposed in 1974 had ceased to be effective after five years, pursuant to Law no. 1187/1968, because the Pomezia District Council had not adopted a detailed development plan. Since then, the applicant company’s land had been subject to the regulations in Law no. 10/1977. The court considered, however, that the building restrictions deriving from the application of that Law could not take the place of an actual decision by the administrative authorities as to the intended use of the land; the authorities were consequently under an obligation to revise the land-use plan (ricostituzione della disciplina urbanistica), and their inaction was unlawful. However, the District Council remained entirely at liberty to determine the use to which the land in issue should be put; the RAC was not empowered to direct that the land should be given a particular designation.
19.  In conclusion, the RAC ordered the administrative authorities to give a fresh decision as to the intended use of the applicant company’s land.
20.  The Pomezia District Council appealed against that decision.
21.  In a decision of 28 February 1992 the Consiglio di Stato dismissed the Pomezia District Council’s appeal and upheld the impugned decision.
22.  On 10 September 1992, in view of the failure of the Pomezia District Council to comply with the Consiglio di Stato’s judgment, the applicant company requested the District Council to adopt a decision on the land. It also proposed a solution whereby if the District Council designated 15,000 square metres as building land, the applicant company would assign the rest of the land to the municipality free of charge. No action was taken on this proposal.
23.  In a decision of 25 October 1995 the Pomezia District Council resolved to adopt a detailed development plan and again imposed an absolute prohibition on building on the applicant company’s land with a view to its expropriation. The District Council set the land aside for public use.
24.  The applicant company appealed against that decision to the regional committee for supervision of measures taken by municipal authorities (CORECO), seeking to have the District Council’s decision overturned. It argued that the indications given as to the intended use of the land were too vague and that the conditions for renewing the prohibition on building, such as that of public interest, were not satisfied. The outcome of the appeal is not known.
25.  It appears from the expert opinion produced by the applicant company that the detailed development plan imposing a prohibition on building on the land was adopted on 22 March 1999.